/WMG/ Warmachine and Hordes General

The point of 17 is to remove control casters getting to just shit all over everyone and winning without really engaging with the opponent.

I'm sorry your version of fun is hated by everyone else, but deal with it.

Somebody TL;DR SR 2017 please.

The point is to remove the race to five and increase attrition and actually playing the game.

No more 'I lock you out of scenario and win on turn 3' games. It means casters like Haley2 can't easily dominate the fans and have to duke it out.

This also means that playing for attrition or assassination is much more valuable than before

Scenario wins are still there but are much harder to achieve

cid.privateerpress.com/forum/archive/steamroller-2017/9335-steamroller-2017-rules-week-two

Before going over the changes, we would like to address the concern that SR 2017 scenarios feel less "live" or "harder to win" than in previous iterations. This is the intent. The days of racing to 5 CPs are gone, and have been replaced with a scenario system that instead promotes engagement and resolution.

Engagement: If you don't engage with the scenario, you will lose by it. Whether you give up so much board presence that you lose to the 6+ CP "mercy" rule, or whether round 7 ends and you are behind on CPs, not engaging is the fast track to defeat.

Resolution: Games in SR 2017 are typically won by either assassination, your opponent clocking, or (more commonly) winning the battle of attrition. Our intent is for players to either kill their opponents caster, or weaken their army to such a degree that they lose their board presence and begin to lose on scenario. The turn 7 limit, and the mercy rule, basically mean that once you've beaten your opponent to the point that they cannot meaningfully contest your board presence, your scenario victory is inevitable (unless they pull off an exciting assassination). To state this more directly, our intent is that Steamroller encourages playing the game, not the scenario.

Some scenarios are easier to score on than others, requiring more engagement and rapid reaction, while others are much slower. In our opinion the scenarios are ranked as follows left to right, easiest to hardest scoring: Spread the Net, Standoff, The Pit II, Outlast, Breakdown, and finally Recon

BUT ANNON I HATE PLAYING THE GAME! PLAYING THE GAME IS BORING!
I LOVE RACING TO 3!

In all seriousness, I love this change. It with the better terrain rules will no longer make victory kinda shitty and bleh.

>with the better terrain rules
I might be the only one, but this really confused me. I've pretty much always set up my tables this way. 8 pieces, LOS blocking in the middle, stuff in zones, etc.

There is functionally no difference between SR16 and 17 for me in regards to terrain except clouds and burning earth are now actually relevant.

How were you guys setting up your tables before?

I set up them in a similar way, but most people who set up tables are AGGRESSIVELY lazy and HATE central line of sight blocking terrain.

They would leave it fucking BLANK if they could.

>The point is to remove the race to five
And good riddance. I feel like they overshot though. In fact, having played (and more recently watched) quite the sizable amount of SR17 games I don't just feel like that, I have actually seen it.

Which I believe if is witnessed enough will attain further adjustments.

Maybe lowering the amount of turns or points by like 1 or 2.

I hope so too. I think 6 turns and 5-more to win should be tested. So one less each.

I mean, random turn length handily solved this issue, but people threw a bitchfit about it.

I really don't get the "scenario is dead" meme.

The Scenario has been live in the majority of SR17 games I've played, and I've won several either on scenario or assassination caused by desperation to not lose on scenario.

Admittedly, locally we tend to only play the first four scenarios in the packet, as the last two are pretty goddamn dead, but for most of them... scenario is playable, and the rush to 5 is dead, and, honestly, fuck the rush to 5.

Scenario is far from dead. However, stalling is currently a bit too valid for my taste.

So since control casters would race to 5, let's just say you have to score 6 more than your opponent?

Are you guys under the age of 20? If you are, no biggy I"ll just jump out. If you're not, do you have any powers of reason?

And FYI, I didn't play control casters of any variety...ever.

>I'm sorry your version of fun is hated by everyone else, but deal with it.

Just drop that shit. That's like saying "If you don't like, it move on". You idiots keep spouting that shit to players enough, they will and your game will be deader than it is.

I'm sorry you are so emotionally invested you can't see that.

That's how I usually set them up in SR16, too. I love that SR17 now says codifies a lot of it. I love 8 terrain pieces per game, too.

There's a reasonable user that isn't an autist shit lord like the guys above.

If the best PP can do to fix the lock out casters winning in 3 is to just completely remove scenario from the packet...well that's insulting to PP.

Deathclock wins fucking suck.

Alright, why are you here? Are you then not also emotionally invested?

I never said that your enjoyment wasn't wrong. But to me it was pretty against what I liked in the game.

This sadly probably comes down to just personal preference as opposed to some grand universal truth about a better game.

You seem the one to be emotionally invested in the game only being able to be won in a specific way.

The win conditions of the game have shifted, figure it out. You're doing nothing but screaming about what other people have said in regards to 17 without having actually played it. You can still win on scenario, you just need to win on attrition first.

The change has made the game more interactive overall, with players having to engage with each other more to actually pull out a win. How is that possibly a bad thing?

Eh, I don't see it as much of a problem Hard attrition is a thing, and I'm fine with it.

My biggest complaint with SR17 (other than the wild difference in quality of boards -- Standoff is my favorite Steamroller scenario ever, and Spread The Net is better than any pre-SR17 scenario, imo, while the rest need to be fixed) is that win-by-6 is bad about letting games drag on. Win-by-5 I think would be better. My current thought for how to do it better is "Win by 3 at the start of your turn".

(Of course, you might have meant what I'm talking about as "games dragging on" in saying "stalling", in which case I like the cut of your jib)

>Eh, I don't see it as much of a problem
What I've been observing in particular is that I've been able to just abandon most of the scenario for a turn or two without being punished for it. Also, getting 7 turns in 60 minutes is an issue in some matchups.

I've probably been observing it more than most as I play a list that can stall with the best, but the issue is definitely there. How apparent it is depends on your meta.

See
It's not that I believe scenario is the 'only' way to win. The most enjoyable way to win (at least for me) is an assassination, as it's the most exciting.

I think one thing we can ALL agree on though is that deathclock wins are the least satisfying way to win for both players. I really cannot imagine someone that enjoys watching someone run out of time after 2ish hours of intense gaming. How is that fun?

Of course, it's not. It's just necessary. So any change to SR that increases deathclock wins and practically removes scenario is a bad change. Period.

And I'm not emotionally invested. I do get sick of anytime someone criticizes PP, they get one of two idiotic answers;

Git gud
Go fuck off

Is this just the Warmachine community? Is it that poisonous? Because if it is, and people keep telling people to fuck off, guess what? You won't have much of anyone in these threads but the same 5 anons spoofing each other and arguing over shit they probably haven't even played.

And my problem with scenario is not in a vacuum. Many of the top players have outright voiced the same complaint, so this isn't some kind of basement silo effect.

>ALL agree on though is that deathclock wins are the least satisfying way to win for both players

I played Lucant in Mk2.

Oh I remember "Lucan't have fun". Kind of makes me nostalgic.

Secondary benefit of going for clock wins: If it's round 4 or 5, then the dude is fucking exhausted is going to make more mistakes as the game goes on.

For some strange reason every time PP tries to make a character light ot magically transforms into an overpriced heavy.
>mfw PP did it twice in legion.

>I think one thing we can ALL agree on though is that deathclock wins are the least satisfying way to win for both players.
You honestly shouldn't be winning/losing on clock. If you are thats a problem with the player clocking out and they need to get better with their activations

>I do get sick of anytime someone criticizes PP, they get one of two idiotic answers;
>Git gud
>Go fuck off
Well when all you do is bitch and moan thread after thread after thread what do you expect? Complaining solves nothing and accomplishes nothing.

That leaves you with a few options. Adapt your play style and figure out how to solve the problem line others have done. Stew in your negativity and try and drag everyone else down. Or finally, fuck off.

Which of those three options sounds better to you? Personally I prefer to tackle problems and solve them. You can do this while admitting there are issues with aspects of the game and still have fun.

You decide what you want to do but if you go with option two and decide to just bitch don't be surprised when people tell you to fuck off

Gonna get the 2 player battle box (cygnar/cryx), won't have the money afterwards to buy both all-in-one army boxes but I still want to expand both factions at about the same rate. any advice?

>And I'm not emotionally invested. I do get sick of anytime someone criticizes PP, they get one of two idiotic answers;
>Git gud
>Go fuck off
>Is this just the Warmachine community? Is it that poisonous?

It's about tone really. The warmachine community is pretty toxic, but in my opinion its way less toxic than before.

On a "Person by Person" basis my community is filled with chill relaxed awesome dudes, and I make sure to go slow, fun, and chill with any new player, and tell them every rule and interaction in detail so they never experience a "HA GOTCHA YOU FUCKER" moment.

I agree that deathclock sucks. Its the worst part. But I kinda hate tournaments and playing under a clock altogether.

Overall if PP notices that its shitty in the longterm they will change it back...But that bugs me: Do you find the game impossible to win under 2 hours without a Scenario? That's never been my experience (The times I have played it).

What do you like in each faction? We can start there and give suggestions from there.

Local communities are usually pretty awesome.

The online community is toxic shit hole. It's now spread out a bit though instead of being concentrated in forums

couldn't care less about the lightning shtick for cygnar but I like shooty things. as for cryx, blasting things with lots of arced sounds fun.

>Do you find the game impossible to win under 2 hours without a Scenario?
Not impossible. But if a player goes for "you need to kill these 100p of models before you can score fast enough to go ahead by 6" time definitely becomes an issue.

I also feel that it goes a bit against the "the game is not over before it's over" quality I always liked about WMH, where even if the attrition is going badly, you can still get an out via Scenario/Assassination if your opponent screws up. My most memorable games have ended this way, most of them to my loss. A victory snatched from the jaws of defeat is just the most exciting way for a game to end. And SR16 scenario was a way of achieving that.

>A victory snatched from the jaws of defeat is just the most exciting way for a game to end. And SR16 scenario was a way of achieving that.

To me scenario kinda felt superficial to me. I can't say I never won due to scenario. But It never really felt satisfactory to me because of how....Metagamey...It felt?

But I still love assasination and your right about how exhilarating it feels:

I just recently had Irusk 2 be left with nothing but the dog and assasinate Butcher 1 over a period of 2 turns.

Maybe scenario could feel more organic if it was designed in a more...plotty? Way. But would be probably even more difficult to balance.

Anyway don't take the toxic online presense personally. This IS also a chan: Your mostly gonna hear "Get Guds" and "Dead Game". Im sure both sides feed off each other in a way.

Well Cygnar is soon going to have a massive update with Trenchers (Their WWII Based Infantry). Its pretty shooty and comes in many different flavors.

Cryx...Well Cryxes Ranged game isn't the best. But not the worst. Im not sure I know more then that.

Alright, I'll grab a few of those guys and the grenade jack for cygnar. for cryx, are mechanithralls something people still use or should I just stick to buffing up the bane game?

>Adapt your play style and figure out how to solve the problem line others have done

Yeah but they haven't.

Both the Mechanithralls and the Banes were majorly buffed in a CID (Community Integrated Development). I don't know when that errata comes into effect but point is I think it can go either or. Or both.

Oh I'm not that guy. While I don't like the average tone in this thread it's just something I learned to live with.

Scenario could really be more thematic, but I'm not sure how you'd do it without impacting balance too much. And for a competitive scenario package balance should be more important than style.

But like i said, scenario can be a lot of fun. My most fun game recently was one where I was way ahead on attrition and my opponent managed to managed to squeeze out a scenario victory with ~2 minutes on the clock and 2 models left. Caught me way off guard.

>And for a competitive scenario package balance should be more important than style.

I'd like that too, but too many competitive players warp the whole environment overall. They have no problem with "HA get dug fag" victories and hate anything that's not just preparation for the next tournament.

Again Il sees how this plays out in practice. At the moment the opinion on it is pretty split.

New to WMH, just staring with Protectorate.

Flameguard are the Protectorate's equivalent to Trencher/Winter Guard/M. Thralls right?

Will we get a Flameguard theme booka nd will they have access to Weapon teams or some sort?

Winning on scenario is basically the gayest way to win in the whole game. Oh, I stood in a spot for 2 turns. Nothing comes off the board. No dice are rolled. I just moved there so I win. So fucking gay it blows my mind its even still in the game.

I'll probably stick to banes then just so I don't need to buy large amounts for when the heavy recursion would come online then.
otherwise, is there any "must have" warjacks or warcasters for either faction I should look at

Desecrators Synergize with dem Banes. And again in the errata, it becomes even better and even more synergetic.

Its also pretty blasty!

Probably. A flame guard book is pretty much guaranteed. Not sure about weapon crews as that's more of a "Zealot" thing. But who knows?

>but too many competitive players warp the whole environment overall. They have no problem with "HA get dug fag" victories and hate anything that's not just preparation for the next tournament
That's a difficult topic and in fact one I cannot comment on too much as we don't have that issue around here. I think the key to solving it is to clear up intent. Make it clear what kind of game you are looking for. If I know my opponent wants to prep for a tournament I'll drop my tournament pairing into him. But if I'm up against a newer player or someone who's just looking to play some B tier caster I'll brew up some jank on the spot.

Well that only happens when you don't contest. Admittedly, scenario rush via hard control is lame, but that is not really a point many people would object to.

Balancing Timed vs Untimed is complicated. I don't like competitive or non-competitive because that implies that game balance somehow "Ruins the game" or playing for fun means busting out shit that's not made well.

I'm hopeful that things will work out in the future and a happy medium will be reached. This CID, for instance, is way better than the last one (Soles is barely present) and much faster.

PP really wants people to play their games and buy ALL their models.

You speak for the whole community? Wow, that's impressive

If you want more thematic scenarios that aren't really competitive check out NQ and the regular leagues. They print tons of thematic casual stuff all year.

Oh, that stuff is great. I wish I could find more willing participants who aren't scared of trying new things.

Precious "Final Destination only" players.

>Complaining solves nothing and accomplishes nothing
Except that it got an entire faction a well needed errata.

Well I think it's important to have strategic complaints.

"WAAA YOU SUCK" Solves nothing.

"You stepped on my toe" Actually works towards the problem. Plus I guess people here are real tired of "Ded Gayme!"

"Some theme lists are much better than others", "Some factions are much stronger than others", "The competitive scene is being dominated by a small pool of things, "Some factions get zero attention while others are lavished". These are common comments, yet nothing comes from those either. PP just doesn't care about the longterm health of their game, it's pretty obvious at this point.

Yeah no, bitching didn't do that. It helped, but providing actual results and feedback got Skorne updated. That errata was well under way long before the bitching reached mail in campaign levels of stupid.

PP pretty much disregards all of the 'this is unplayable trash' feedback they get

So I guess if you want to be super negative about it that is one way to look at it. The other is that they have been consistently updating the game and bringing up under played models (Banes, Skorne, Battle Engines, etc).

What do you expect them to do? Just update everything over night and hope for the best? Have you ever worked in any kind of game development? This shot takes time

Nah dude, outrage brought attention to the matter. If they had posts that were occasional "I think something might be wrong with Skorne because of X-Y-Z", I doubt it would have gotten an errata.

My proof is the balancing of anything OP...ever. Gaspy took hits after people PP knew threw online bitch fits about it (hacksaw). Hayley the same.

PP is ran by a bunch of kids for the most part.

>This shot takes time

3 years worth?

>PP just doesn't care about the longterm health of their game, it's pretty obvious at this point.

Yes. They are also the ones that sneak into your house and hide your other sock. They also kick puppies in their spare time and steal children on Behalf of Koshie the Deathless whilst using trained geese.

>What do you expect them to do?
Their fucking jobs and balance their piss take of a game. How can you say with any degree of sincerity that PP are trying to balance their game? They haven't done jack fucking shit son. The Skorne errata did very little to help the faction, Banes are like 3 units in one faction that's doing fine as it stands anyway, battle engines can be argued as the only thing they've done to actually balance their game as a whole through CID.

But I'm sure the game really needed another fucking faction.

PP said they were going to do a balance update for the game every 6 months. The next should be out this month. If it was going to be, it would already be on CID. Meaning PP have abandoned balancing their game.

>PP said they were going to do a balance update for the game every 6 months. The next should be out this month.
Next month. Probably after L+L.

The first was in December, with the Skorne errata being the exception due to the size of it. Regardless, every 6 months simply isn't enough. Don't they do internal playtesting? Can't they just look at a model and see it can't do its job properly?

Es the Jan one was released early. But what does anything I say matter? You're in the state where nothing I say, nothing PP does will change your mind of WMH being the worst ever. So why are you still bothering?

>nothing PP does will change your mind
A balance update would. No, Banes do not count. No, being thrown a bone once every 6 months does not count. They're literally releasing an entire faction and giving Cygnar a new sub-faction before their second balance update.

>Their fucking jobs and balance their piss take of a game
Have you been paying attention to CID? Do you understand that play testing takes time?

They literally are balancing their game, but it takes time dude. Chill the fuck out. It's a game, relax, have fun. It's not worth getting this bent out of shape over
>3 years worth?
You're joking, but this isn't totally off.

Think about one unit that you want to tweak. Any unit or solo, doesn't matter.

OK, now any changes you make need to balanced against everything in the faction and everything coming out for the faction in the future. Now balance it against every Merc option available. Now balance that against every option it will see across the table.

Now do that for every unit and solo that people want updated that's currently out and do it for all the new shit that's coming and see how much you get done in a work day.

Now think about the time it took for a single unit or solo and double it for a Warcaster or Warlock.

If you do that, and you're actually honest with yourself about it, you might get an idea for why it takes awhile for updates.

>A balance update would.
Well it's out next month. So you can shut up now.

[Citation required]

Considering the amount of shit PP says they're going to do but don't do, I have zero faith in this.

They've had two errata, three if you count Skorne separately, a dynamic update, and five CID cycles in the last year

The fuck off and play something else. We'll both be happier for it.

Examples? Just admit it, you're a salty cunt and nothing they do will possibly make you happy.

>You're joking, but this isn't totally off.

No user, you missed the joke.

PP stated they balanced the game for 3 years before releasing Mk 3. That's literally the joke.

I get it, but they litterally took three plus years. You can read their design notes and they go back that far

The game needed another year of testing but they did actually develop mk3 for three years.

>The Warmachine Community ladies and gentlemen

>litterally

If the initial launch of Mk 3 was after 3 years of development, then I'm sorry to say they fucking suck. Because it took experienced players about 5 minutes looking over leaks to see breaks that were blatant, over the top silly shit.

It was so bad, there were good players arguing it couldn't be the real release because of the rules.

We're sick of your shit. If you don't like it stop being a cunt in every thread

I'm a salty cunt BECAUSE they're doing nothing that makes me happy.

Yes. Indeed. We are quite sick of your kind. Shit or get of the pot. Or in other words, play the game of fuck off some place else.

See >Think about one unit that you want to tweak. Any unit or solo, doesn't matter.
>OK, now any changes you make need to balanced against everything in the faction and everything coming out for the faction in the future. Now balance it against every Merc option available. Now balance that against every option it will see across the table.
>Now do that for every unit and solo that people want updated that's currently out and do it for all the new shit that's coming and see how much you get done in a work day.
>Now think about the time it took for a single unit or solo and double it for a Warcaster or Warlock.
>If you do that, and you're actually honest with yourself about it, you might get an idea for why it takes awhile for updates.

Some stuff sucks, it's not perfect, and honestly the game probably needed another year of development. I don't think anyone denies that if they're being honest

If you are being honest though, and actually play the game, you know that the code rules are better than last edition and more models are actually viable on the table despite some being less viable than previously.

You also have to admit that the theoretical distance between the top factions and the bottom ones is smaller than mk2 ever was. It still sucks to be the worst faction but it sucks less than it did previously

But here is a dark truth annon: you are not the center of the universe annon.

And the moves that pp are making make allot of people happy. Cryx problems you casually dismissed where like 1/2 of faction identity that wasnt working.

Im sad that your not happy, but pp are actively trying to make stuff better. But because its not in the way you want, your all pissy over it

So what do you want then? How many updates will take to get you to stop complaining like a whiney bitch?

They've done a ton of updates for the game. Are you just salty because they haven't made your personal favorite toy the best in the game? Get over yourself dude

The idea that models need to be consciously balanced and weighed against every other model in the game is completely retarded and is just an excuse. Just look at a model, ask what it's meant to do, and nudge a number or two to help it do that. That is LITERALLY all they did in the Skorne errata which everyone praised. Keltarii want to tie things up? +1SPD. Swordsmen want to actually hit things for once and do damage? +1MAT and Power Swell. Bronzeback wants to punch things? +1FURY. Master Tormentor fails to actually kill things too often? Weaponmaster.

It's actually really fucking easy to do. There's no model in this game that would become broken if a stat was nudged, but there's an awful lot that could become playable.

>The idea that models need to be consciously balanced and weighed against every other model in the game is completely retarded and is just an excuse. Just look at a model, ask what it's meant to do, and nudge a number or two to help it do that. That is LITERALLY all they did in the Skorne errata
You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

This kind of approach works in Warhammer and other casual games, it doesn't work in games like Warmachine

>Don't give that shitty unit +1MAT, you'll break the gaaaaaame
Bitch please shut the fuck up.

And this is why the online community sucks right now. Shitty people like you that refuse to accept answers

Just leave if you're going to be like this. I'd rather have a dead game than insufferable shitlords like you around

>And this is why the online community sucks right now. Shitty people like you that refuse to accept answers
Do you not see the irony in your statement?

I feel like there's a difference between one person trying to offer helpful answers and another just shouting 'bitch please shut the fuck up' when they're presented with an answer they don't like

Jack heavy cryx armies. yay or nay?

The entire Skorne errata was quite literally PP doing exactly as I said. It's all they've ever done. To say that they put Mk3.0 Skorne aside all other factions as you suggested they do and said "yeah, this seems good" is ridiculous. First and foremost a model must do its job within the confines of its faction. Otherwise faction identity goes out the window because you're making sure every faction's X is about as good in a vacuum as every other faction's X.

Alright smart guy, let's play a game.

Pick something in the game and figure out a buff for it. You have to adjust it in some way that doesn't invalidate anything currently in faction, the model still has to perform its role, and you have to stay within the design intentions of the faction and mk3 in general.

Do that and I'll tell you why you're a moron

You really think they just sat in a room and bumped random stats for six months and did zero testing for the Skorne errata? Really?

I know /WMHG/ regulars aren't the brightest bulbs in the community but that's a pretty impressively stupid comment.

Wait what? Is the argument that changing a faction after the methodologies and meta's of the entire game have had time to fully develop is the exact same as reworking the entire fucking game?

Also what defines as "Nudging". Cygnarians like "Nudging". After the removal of AD from the Hunter some demand for nudging for Marksman on the Hunter. Seems fair right?